Fortimir
macrumors 6502a
In case you aren't trolling, you do realize Monster has never made a cable that was better than another cable for less money, right?
If you are, then that's a good one!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Prices of Thunderbolt Cables Likely to Drop in 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In case you aren't trolling, you do realize Monster has never made a cable that was better than another cable for less money, right?
If you are, then that's a good one!
UnfetteredMind
macrumors 6502
I currently have no machines with Thunderbolt, but I'm considering refreshing my 2006 MacPro in the next year (since it won't run ML). I have multiple eSATA devices (RAID, standalone drive). They do have FW800 connections so it's possible I could connect them that way as well, assuming the new Mac I go with still has FW800.
Any lowering of TB costs is welcome! Hopefully it will lower the costs of actual consumer products using TB.
Any lowering of TB costs is welcome! Hopefully it will lower the costs of actual consumer products using TB.
A single port for everything does sound even better but... USB has been SO outrageously successful, I can't imagine it being completely replaced, even with something as powerful as Thunderbolt. Just think of all the hundreds of USB devices available today... are you going to use a USB to Thunderbolt dongle for ALL of those?
Dr McKay
macrumors 601
spazzcat
macrumors 601
I have a RMPB, so I have a network adapter and a display port adapter, so I own two...
When fiber versions become available, the optical transducers can be included inside the cable connectors. That will make them compatible with current TB Macs.
spazzcat
macrumors 601
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
There are no optical T-Bolt cables at any speed. You are quoting roadmap and theoretical numbers. And "multi-path" is questionable - a T-Bolt chain is single-path.
Fail.
Are you talking about T-Bolt 2.0 or T-Bolt 3.0?
T-Bolt 1.0 does not support optical cables - but there are certain vaporware noises about connectors with Cu-Optical transceivers in the cable for longer cable runs at copper speeds - but each end is a copper connection.
This is a liability, not an asset. Daisy chains are pure suck - since you often have to shut the system down to remove or insert a device in the middle
spazzcat
macrumors 601
Don't need to wait until 2015, my RMPB already has no network port, firewire, DVI, or VGA. It does have HDMI, but really Apple could have just included a third TB port.
----------
The price will come down, look at Bluray when it first came out. All tech is pricey when it first comes out...
Fortimir
macrumors 6502a
Yep. Never said I wasn't.
And I should have specified that by multi-channel I was referring to the ability of Thunderbolt to not suck performance out of the entire bus like USB. Thunderbolt is designed to handle multiple devices of varying levels of performance without affecting the channel itself.
Most things I'd want to daisy chain aren't being hotplugged, so that's a near-non-issue. And now that everything is going the way of SSDs, a full system restart takes 15 seconds. I can deal. The big point for me is that I still see daisy chains as a plus since devices can be smaller and I'm faced with less cable clutter.
----------
Thunderbolt is quite a bit more capable than Firewire. I think it will have a much better future... not that Firewire really had a bad life. It's still around, just living in the shadows. Thunderbolt is definitely a MUCH larger threat to Firewire than anything else.
Of course it will come down, the point is it will be too late.
----------
So was Firewire compared to USB.
Surely it would have made more sense to put that tiny microcontroller and voltage regulator on the actual thunderbolt port and devices, thus reducing the cable cost...you know...how every single other cable works.
Thunderbolt is a really cool idea. It'd be great if/when it becomes commonplace with many inexpensive accessories and cables.
But what I don't understand is: Who on earth thought eight chips inside every cable was a good idea? Anything requiring $50 cables is going to be adopted about as fast as concrete soccer balls.
But what I don't understand is: Who on earth thought eight chips inside every cable was a good idea? Anything requiring $50 cables is going to be adopted about as fast as concrete soccer balls.
Fortimir
macrumors 6502a
You're just moving the cost and sacrificing expand-ability. Think about how many limits are lifted by making the port "open" and forcing the cables and peripherals to utilize it. Sure it costs a hair more because you'll have more cables... but this is a pro tech, not a consumer one at the moment.
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors G3
I wouldn't consider myself a hardware pro (I'm more of a software guy,) but isn't the fact that those chips are in the cable instead of the port the reason optical TB cables will work with current macs?
Going this route with USB years ago would have meant USB 3 cables would be allowed to plug into USB 2 ports, wouldn't it?
This route allows ports to be forward compatible and support devices not yet released rather than backwards compatible and only support prior devices.
Put another way, getting the latest and greatest means replacing a few cables that add up to a few hundred dollars, rather than your computer setup, which for pro users is generally more than a few thousand dollars.
(If I'm wrong, someone please let me know - I could be grossly misinformed.)
tech4all
macrumors 68040
hobo.hopkins
macrumors 6502a
I believe that everyone would welcome a price decrease. It's always an unfortunate hindrance to the adoption of new technology.
baryon
macrumors 601
So, the optical signal (the light pulses) won't be coming from the computer, but rather generated by the cable? So there will not only be 2 freaking microcomputers in each cable (one at each end), but also a whole light generating/receiving thingy?
Wouldn't it be easier to just put an LED in the computer (cheap as hell) that simply blinks the 1s and the 0s and a transparent cable relays them? I mean, I'm not an engineer, but this is how optical audio works today, it costs nothing and it's a working way to relay lots of information. Why can't Thunderbolt do this?
Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1
When fiber versions become available, the optical transducers can be included inside the cable connectors. That will make them compatible with current TB Macs.
It's so you can take the new optical table which is not yet designed/made/sold, and plug them into your existing thunderbolt port.
"So, the optical signal (the light pulses) won't be coming from the computer, but rather generated by the cable? So there will not only be 2 freaking microcomputers in each cable (one at each end), but also a whole light generating/receiving thingy?
Wouldn't it be easier to just put an LED in the computer (cheap as hell) that simply blinks the 1s and the 0s and a transparent cable relays them? I mean, I'm not an engineer, but this is how optical audio works today, it costs nothing and and it's a working way to relay lots of information. Why can't Thunderbolt do this?"
And no, optical transmitters are NOT cheap. Low frequency crap LED's yes. But not for high speed. Here's one for a 1Gb network at $100:
http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-GLC-SX-MM-1000BASE-SX-Transceiver-Module/dp/B0000ANEX9
I guarantee that thunderbolt runs faster than Ethernet... a lot faster, and hence more expensive.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
faroZ06
macrumors 68040
It'll still be expensive because Apple charges ripoff prices for cables.
----------
It's annoying how Apple is sacrificing FireWire 400 for FW800 and/or Thunderbolt. So many devices use FW400. It was cool when Apple just gave us FW800 and FW400, but now you need adapters. I'm gonna stick with 2008 for a while.
----------
I doubt the iPhone's internal memory is even fast enough to utilize Thunderbolt effectively, so it would end up just being overpriced. Firewire would be good.
----------
It's annoying how Apple is sacrificing FireWire 400 for FW800 and/or Thunderbolt. So many devices use FW400. It was cool when Apple just gave us FW800 and FW400, but now you need adapters. I'm gonna stick with 2008 for a while.
----------
I doubt the iPhone's internal memory is even fast enough to utilize Thunderbolt effectively, so it would end up just being overpriced. Firewire would be good.